Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Banjax on 26 January 2011, 07:55:09
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
Whitehall isn't it????
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
I agree Banjax!
The hard fact is it is not all about democracy ruling, but so often International Bankers and their institutions who rule! It has been this way for a very long time, although I am not fully knowledgeable by a long way on banking and monetary techniques.
Two things I do know is:
1. The Bank Of England do not have enough gold to honour payments on all the notes and coinage out there in the system. To me that means we always live beyond our actual financial situation
2. Without the International banking system much in history could not have taken place. The Nazis in relatively modern history is a good example of this fact, with their whole war effort only possible due to the financing made available to them by Swiss, American and British bankers, amongst others, in a consortium that lasted from the 1930s to 1945.
Who rules our countries indeed?!
The current situation proves how the dog is waged by the (bankers) tail! ::) ::) ::)
-
what I didn't appreciate until recently was that banks literally create money out of thin air
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."
Baron Josiah Stamp, governor Bank of England 1928-1941
we are literally slaves to debt (money created by banks) and we pay them for the privilege, everyone of us, even our governments - utter madness Lizzie - you're right its the tail wagging the dog :o
-
what I didn't appreciate until recently was that banks literally create money out of thin air
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."
Baron Josiah Stamp, governor Bank of England 1928-1941
How true that is!! :y :y :y :y
-
what I didn't appreciate until recently was that banks literally create money out of thin air
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better taworld to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."
Baron Josiah Smp, governor Bank of England 1928-1941[/highlight]
we are literally slaves to debt (money created by banks) and we pay them for the privilege, everyone of us, even our governments - utter madness Lizzie - you're right its the tail wagging the dog :o
Profound words ...... BJ :y
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
Congratulations Banjax :y :y :y :y :y
You asked critical questions.. I hope more people in the future will start to ask those who believes they are living in democracy ;D
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
I agree Banjax!
The hard fact is it is not all about democracy ruling, but so often International Bankers and their institutions who rule! It has been this way for a very long time, although I am not fully knowledgeable by a long way on banking and monetary techniques.
Two things I do know is:
1. The Bank Of England do not have enough gold to honour payments on all the notes and coinage out there in the system. To me that means we always live beyond our actual financial situation
2. Without the International banking system much in history could not have taken place. The Nazis in relatively modern history is a good example of this fact, with their whole war effort only possible due to the financing made available to them by Swiss, American and British bankers, amongst others, in a consortium that lasted from the 1930s to 1945.
[size=12]Who rules our countries indeed[/size]?!
The current situation proves how the dog is waged by the (bankers) tail! ::) ::) ::)
:y :y :y :y :y
I'm glad to see some people hear me :)
-
what I didn't appreciate until recently was that banks literally create money out of thin air
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."
Baron Josiah Stamp, governor Bank of England 1928-1941
we are literally slaves to debt (money created by banks) and we pay them for the privilege, everyone of us, even our governments - utter madness Lizzie - you're right its the tail wagging the dog :o
yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. :y
-
now some other questions, who are those bankers,
where they live, what they own and what groups they belong to and what nationality and past they have ;)
and what happened to them in global financial crisis ? ( and the previous ones)
answer to last question : they become more rich so they need to hire thousands of man and years to count their money ;D
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
After the last labour government arrogantly ruined our country by forcing things upon us, no one can possible think we live in a democracy.
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
have you you seen zietgeist banjax??
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
"yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. "
what surprises me Albs , a worker like you, dont accept this solution ;D :-/
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
have you you seen zietgeist banjax??
havent seen that film - but it looks interesting - cheers - i'll check it out :y
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
wow - big question Albs, considering banks create wealth and decide who and what to fund its an almost impossible vicious circle that could of been broken recently with braver politicians but making it illegal for banks to create money would be a start and allow governments to be the ones to create money for civil engineering projects, schools, libraries, hospitals, etc
I'm not an expert but i'm sure smart people on lots of money can figure it out :y
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
"yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. "
what surprises me Albs , a worker like you, dont accept this solution ;D :-/
In theory I would like to see that cem, the only thing is - as in most cases - given the tendency for human beings to try and better their position over that of their neighbours it will almost certainly always be the case of ‘all people are equal - only some are more equal than others’
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
"yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. "
what surprises me Albs , a worker like you, dont accept this solution ;D :-/
In theory I would like to see that cem, the only thing is - as in most cases - given the tendency for human beings to try and better their position over that of their neighbours it will almost certainly always be the case of ‘all people are equal - only some are more equal than others’
For me the answer in theory is to adopt the ideas of Plato in The Republic c.380 BC. Very thought provoking philosophy that could form the perfect society, and take monetary reward away from the bankers! 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
"yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. "
what surprises me Albs , a worker like you, dont accept this solution ;D :-/
In theory I would like to see that cem, the only thing is - as in most cases - given the tendency for human beings to try and better their position over that of their neighbours it will almost certainly always be the case of ‘all people are equal - only some are more equal than others’
correct dosage of ambition is something understandable (not the violent one that the capitalist system imposes ).. And its good for the future of community Zulu.. Although humans are not equal, giving them equal chances of education and some civil services is a good starting point.. why cant a postmans children cant go Eton college or the likes ?
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
"yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. "
what surprises me Albs , a worker like you, dont accept this solution ;D :-/
It has been proved time and time again Cem that Marxism does not work, and worse it suffocates the human spirit,removes aspiration, ambition,individualism and creativity.
I am amazed that anyone can still hold any believe in this ill thought out theory. ;)
I dont know if any postmans children have ever gone to Eton, but we used to have a system of Grammar schools in this country, where children who were obviously bright could receive an exceptional education, regardless of background or wealth.
The socialists have almost cpmpletely removed this system, and the very few of these schools which remain are under constant and severe attack from socialist politicians at local level.
The reason - they are elitist, they dont allow for all children to be taught at the same level - because we are all the same, in the socialist mentality. We now have the "comprehensive" system of education, which has dumbed down education in the U.K. to the point where our schools are sliding down the world tables and our education system is a chaotic shambles.
School leavers these days very often are educated worse than 9 year olds used to be imo.
We are fortunate where we live that we still have a few Grammar schools (for the time being) and both my children were considered bright enough to go there, even though I have spent most of my working life shovelling concrete.
These schools are considered politically to be so right wing, that our modern day slightly right wing Tory party is too frightened to say a word in support of them.All the main parties are much more interested in either their own position or imposing their own idealogy than they are in the education of our children.
So a society of everyone being treated exactly equal would imo be a living nightmare. ;)
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
"yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. "
what surprises me Albs , a worker like you, dont accept this solution ;D :-/
In theory I would like to see that cem, the only thing is - as in most cases - given the tendency for human beings to try and better their position over that of their neighbours it will almost certainly always be the case of ‘all people are equal - only some are more equal than others’
correct dosage of ambition is something understandable (not the violent one that the capitalist system imposes ).. And its good for the future of community Zulu.. Although humans are not equal, giving them equal chances of education and some civil services is a good starting point.. why cant a postmans children cant go Eton college or the likes ?
That is all very well covered by Plato Cem and if The Republic became reality those points would all be resolved 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
After the last labour government arrogantly ruined our country by forcing things upon us, no one can possible think we live in a democracy.
do you honistlt belive that what ever govrment are in are running anything?
there just puppets on strings
to keep the average morons working out that were all in a dictator ship
-
Banjax. Afaik Governments can print money, but they cant create wealth.
Banks do not decide what happens to all the new money which is created. Governments largely decide that by levying taxes in ways and amounts that they deem appropriate. They then redistribute it as they see fit.
This currently accounts for approx. 50% of all money earned in the U.K. - depending on which set of figures you choose to believe. ;)
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
"yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. "
what surprises me Albs , a worker like you, dont accept this solution ;D :-/
It has been proved time and time again Cem that Marxism does not work,
it does work .. the socialist communities (from a poor economy level) reached same level of technology and social services compared to capitalist countries without exploiting other countries.. and they succeed in this under extreme economic conditions that the capitalist world tried every evil way on them.. ;D
and worse it suffocates the human spirit,removes aspiration, ambition,individualism and creativity.
;D ;D ;D
Albs, these are the ready pills of the "system" from cold war era.. you gulp it or not.. its up to you.. but economic conditions of world markets proove the truth to be reverse..
one point to note , past and living experiences of Marx economic model are successful in proportion to the content they applied it..
but there is something very obvious, pumping the money continously to bankers/high classes definitely dont solve the problems of communities ..
I am amazed that anyone can still hold any believe in this ill thought out theory. ;)
better than pumping my money to someone who is million times richer than me.. ;D
-
Banjax. Afaik Governments can print money, but they cant create wealth.
Banks do not decide what happens to all the new money which is created.
Banks are so critical that they are like hearts in a body that pump the blood .. apart from that, banks like federal reserve or central banks are like the brains.. they control everything..and create money in some ratio to the production of community..
Governments largely decide that by levying taxes in ways and amounts that they deem appropriate. They then redistribute it as they see fit.
This currently accounts for approx. 50% of all money earned in the U.K. - depending on which set of figures you choose to believe. ;)
-
1.Who creates money?
2.Who decides how newly created money is used?
3.Who gets the profit from newly created money?
and I'll bet you thought you lived in a democracy - I don't remember voting for any of them :o
I agree Banjax!
The hard fact is it is not all about democracy ruling, but so often International Bankers and their institutions who rule! It has been this way for a very long time, although I am not fully knowledgeable by a long way on banking and monetary techniques.
Two things I do know is:
1. The Bank Of England do not have enough gold to honour payments on all the notes and coinage out there in the system. To me that means we always live beyond our actual financial situation
2. Without the International banking system much in history could not have taken place. The Nazis in relatively modern history is a good example of this fact, with their whole war effort only possible due to the financing made available to them by Swiss, American and British bankers, amongst others, in a consortium that lasted from the 1930s to 1945.
Who rules our countries indeed?!
The current situation proves how the dog is waged by the (bankers) tail! ::) ::) ::)
No wonder we are in a financial mess if dogs have been put on the payrole ::) ;)
-
correct dosage of ambition is something understandable (not the violent one that the capitalist system imposes ).. And its good for the future of community Zulu.. Although humans are not equal, giving them equal chances of education and some civil services is a good starting point.. why cant a postmans children cant go Eton college or the likes ?
not the violent one that the capitalist system imposes
;D ;D ;D You didn't disappoint me there cem.
Yes it certainly is desirable that all people are given the chance of education, a stable environment, a loving family unit, productive and rewarding employment, freedom from oppression (both secular and religious) and above all, the opportunity to be the best that they can possibly be - unfortunately in all systems, particularly in the ones we usually discuss here, these desirable things don't always filter down to those who would seek the opportunity to explore, exploit and experience them.
In my view this is very much part of the human condition rather than the dogma of social/political orientation or system. We humans can't help it as, in many cases, it is part of our collective nature.
-
We have been round in circles with this conversation before Cem, and I will finish with the same question I finished with last time. Why are most of the people in the socialist utopia of Cuba trying anything they can think of - including risking life and limb - to leave their homeland and reach the shores of that evil empire known as the U.S.A. and it is unheard of for any ordinary working people from the U.S.A. bothering to get on a plane and emigrating to Cuba?? ;)
-
Banjax - assuming you are right. What is your proposed solution to what you percieve to be this terrible problem ? :-/
"yes.. the community must own the production tools and money making power.. otherwise the bankers will get everything.. "
what surprises me Albs , a worker like you, dont accept this solution ;D :-/
It has been proved time and time again Cem that Marxism does not work, and worse it suffocates the human spirit,removes aspiration, ambition,individualism and creativity.
I am amazed that anyone can still hold any believe in this ill thought out theory. ;)
I dont know if any postmans children have ever gone to Eton,
no chance Albs :-/
but we used to have a system of Grammar schools in this country, where children who were obviously bright could receive an exceptional education, regardless of background or wealth.
thats fine :y
The socialists have almost cpmpletely removed this system, and the very few of these schools which remain are under constant and severe attack from socialist politicians at local level.
The reason - they are elitist, they dont allow for all children to be taught at the same level - because we are all the same, in the socialist mentality. We now have the "comprehensive" system of education, which has dumbed down education in the U.K. to the point where our schools are sliding down the world tables and our education system is a chaotic shambles.
School leavers these days very often are educated worse than 9 year olds used to be imo.
We are fortunate where we live that we still have a few Grammar schools (for the time being) and both my children were considered bright enough to go there, even though I have spent most of my working life shovelling concrete.
These schools are considered politically to be so right wing, that our modern day slightly right wing Tory party is too frightened to say a word in support of them.All the main parties are much more interested in either their own position or imposing their own idealogy than they are in the education of our children.
So a society of everyone being treated exactly equal would imo be a living nightmare. ;)
Albs, UK is a different kind of country that you cant simply apply socialist rules/laws/models because of its emperialistic history and historical-physical ties to whole world .. There are very strong rich classes there that even rule some parts of the world and have legs on every continent..
and also middle classes have a life standard that even most of the poor countries rich classes hardly catch..
so any party claiming to be socialist in UK start the life with hands and feet tied up :-/ and another problem is those people (mostly) already belong to high classes.. :-/
-
We have been round in circles with this conversation before Cem, and I will finish with the same question I finished with last time. Why are most of the people in the socialist utopia of Cuba trying anything they can think of - including risking life and limb - to leave their homeland and reach the shores of that evil empire known as the U.S.A. and it is unheard of for any ordinary working people from the U.S.A. bothering to get on a plane and emigrating to Cuba?? ;)
as I answered before , they want more than their poor community can give them which is impossible and they make a big mistake that they think they will get this from another nation.. ;D
but do you know what they get , some of them die on the road, some of them work in most bad jobs for unacceptable salaries and some of them become slaves of intelligence or soldier for money :'(
-
correct dosage of ambition is something understandable (not the violent one that the capitalist system imposes ).. And its good for the future of community Zulu.. Although humans are not equal, giving them equal chances of education and some civil services is a good starting point.. why cant a postmans children cant go Eton college or the likes ?
not the violent one that the capitalist system imposes
;D ;D ;D You didn't disappoint me there cem.
Yes it certainly is desirable that all people are given the chance of education, a stable environment, a loving family unit, productive and rewarding employment, freedom from oppression (both secular and religious) and above all, the opportunity to be the best that they can possibly be - unfortunately in all systems, particularly in the ones we usually discuss here, these desirable things don't always filter down to those who would seek the opportunity to explore, exploit and experience them.
In my view this is very much part of the human condition rather than the dogma of social/political orientation or system. We humans can't help it as, in many cases, it is part of our collective nature.
yep.. its correct.. rising above the others "alpha male" or whatever, comes from our historical-ancient genes which is our animal part.. but I doubt thats necessary in a "modern community" .. instead there are different mechanisms/exams that can define your level..
-
Albs - I'm being critical of the way banks now dominate us completely, "money" is debt and when you borrow money the bank wants to know what you're doing with it - thats the same for one person as it is for companies and businesses, thats why i say they control the direction society takes more than any other force.
and why is it that your default position to any argument is "dont like it? well see how you like life under communism!!!" as i see it theres a vast field of possibilities from one extreme to the other, just because others can see radically different ways of doing things for the betterment of all doesnt make me a commie, surely :-?
i think we could all benefit from dialling back the capitilism and fading in some socialism :y
-
I admire you all for your knowledge & convictions, you have all made valid points that i could'nt possibly argue for or against. I left school /home in 1979 & since then have worked through countless governments/regimes if you like & after all these years i still live happily in my little house doing my little job, & enjoying my hobbies, friends/family, loved ones & day to day life. I could'nt care less who get's voted in or what they promise because they never deliver it anyway & blame it on the mess left behind by the previous party. I admire those of you with more knowledge of such issues & your well meant intentions but none of us will change the world, the arrogant in power will never listen. I know this will be unpopular with some of you & i'm sorry but my head is happiy in the sand.
Let them get on with it. ;)
-
just logged in for five minutes to check messages before returning to reading a book called "conspiracy of the rich" by robert kiyosaki (of rich dad poor dad fame).
he's basically saying what banjax said in the first post, but also poses this:
why is school dedicated to teaching everyone who attends how to get a better job, instead of how to own the business?
even such courses as the "MBA" (Masters in Business Administration) is about running a business, not owning/investing in several
we are taught to climb the corporate ladder, why are we not taught to own the ladder?
even the grammar school was to separate out the people who would make better employees.
probably the reason why postmen aren't given the opportunity to attend eton.
-
I admire you all for your knowledge & convictions, you have all made valid points that i could'nt possibly argue for or against. I left school /home in 1979 & since then have worked through countless governments/regimes if you like & after all these years i still live happily in my little house doing my little job, & enjoying my hobbies, friends/family, loved ones & day to day life. I could'nt care less who get's voted in or what they promise because they never deliver it anyway & blame it on the mess left behind by the previous party. I admire those of you with more knowledge of such issues & your well meant intentions but none of us will change the world, the arrogant in power will never listen. I know this will be unpopular with some of you & i'm sorry but my head is happiy in the sand.
Let them get on with it. ;)
You are so right Guy! :y :y :y
The ruling elite since 380 BC have been ignoring the very practical plan of Plato, but a it meant no wealth for them they didn't want to know!
How true that is of the same elite today, and now perhaps it will take a Hobbs Leviathan
(1651) to bring a strong hand to proceedings to part the financers from their power! ::) ::) ::)
-
just logged in for five minutes to check messages before returning to reading a book called "conspiracy of the rich" by robert kiyosaki (of rich dad poor dad fame).
he's basically saying what banjax said in the first post, but also poses this:
why is school dedicated to teaching everyone who attends how to get a better job, instead of how to own the business?
even such courses as the "MBA" (Masters in Business Administration) is about running a business, not owning/investing in several
we are taught to climb the corporate ladder, why are we not taught to own the ladder?
even the grammar school was to separate out the people who would make better employees.
probably the reason why postmen aren't given the opportunity to attend eton.
Because the system is owned by the capitalist ruling elite and runs for their benefit, not for the benefit of the lower classes. Marx had that one fully understood, but still nothing changes because why would the ruling elite change a system that gives them the power?
Even the dear old socialist NHS repairs those damaged by the capitalist system. Why? So that they can go back to work as soon as possible to carry on creating the wealth for the capitalist masters, the owners of industry! ::) ::) ::)
-
so you feel that the answer is to remove the "ruling elite" and give power to "the masses"?
can't see that working, it will just create a new elite.
I'd rather give anyone the chance to JOIN the elite.
-
another question -
lots of adverts offering to buy gold.
companies don't buy if they can't sell at a profit.
who's buying the gold?
clue:
Rules od monopoly:
"The 'bank' never goes broke. If 'The Bank' ever runs out of money, it can make as much more as needed by merely writing on any ordinary piece of paper"
I think, ultimately, that the "ruling capitalists" are buying the gold, because most, if not all, the world's currencies are going to become worthless, and the only "real" wealth will be in gold.
-
I'm playing a wild card here but, some vote some don't & non votes are wasted or go to someone else? i dunno but what would happen at the next general election if no one voted? If the whole country caught a dose of the apathy i happily live with, what would happen? I can picture them all in anticipation then NOTHING!!!
Would the police or military take over for a while? Would there be an EU input? Just wondered!!!! Guy. :D
-
so you feel that the answer is to remove the "ruling elite" and give power to "the masses"?
can't see that working, it will just create a new elite.
I'd rather give anyone the chance to JOIN the elite.
No, I am not saying that. The elite should use their knowledge and experience to provide advice and guidance to the administrators of the nation, with both those levels having no wealth but rewarded by how they give so much to society. The elite provide the training and the knowledge to the administrators, or auxiliaries, and have the responsibility of recognising ability and skill in those in the lower levels. The lowest level of society produce the wealth for society by way of their labours, and can have unlimited wealth for themselves, which the auxiliary and elite classes cannot have.
-
why would the elite do that?
I certainly wouldn't if it was me - I want the unlimited wealth that comes with me expertise and experience.
Actually, I've just had a thought.
Petrol HASN'T gone up in price, the pound has gone down in value.
Because fuel has intrinsic value (a certain number of miles, or a certain amount of heat, or a certain amount of work), and a pound doesn't.
-
so you feel that the answer is to remove the "ruling elite" and give power to "the masses"?
can't see that working, it will just create a new elite.
I'd rather give anyone the chance to JOIN the elite.
Absolutely spot on mate. And the old Grammar schools gave people the chance to join that Elite, not just be btter employess. Prime ministers and senior politicians of modern times can be divided into those who went to public school or those who went to Grammar school. There is no third group. Now the Grammars have all but gone we are back to purely public school PM,s ( both Blair and Cameron did ) and social mobility has all but stopped.
There is a very interesting programme about this on BBC2 as we speak. It has dealt with these very issues in a very objective way. Its almost finished but should be repeated or on iplayer, and is well wrth watching. I think its called Posh and Posher.
Banjax - Im not looking at everything as purely yes/ no, Black/white - I do know there are many shades of grey in between - I see most of them posting on here regularily. ::) ;D
I was responding directly to Cems post quoting directly from Marx. ;)
-
another question -
lots of adverts offering to buy gold.
companies don't buy if they can't sell at a profit.
who's buying the gold?
clue:
Rules od monopoly:
"The 'bank' never goes broke. If 'The Bank' ever runs out of money, it can make as much more as needed by merely writing on any ordinary piece of paper"
I think, ultimately, that the "ruling capitalists" are buying the gold, because most, if not all, the world's currencies are going to become worthless, and the only "real" wealth will be in gold.
And surely the answer to that is for us all to empty our piggybanks and go and buy some gold. We are then participants rather than poor under priviliged peasants, or bitter, jealous people wishing we had a slice of the pie.
Be aware however if you do thaat and dont have the nouse to sell your gold at the right time, you could end up poorer and more downtrodden than you were to start with. ;)
-
why would the elite do that?
I certainly wouldn't if it was me - I want the unlimited wealth that comes with me expertise and experience.
Actually, I've just had a thought.
Petrol HASN'T gone up in price, the pound has gone down in value.
Because fuel has intrinsic value (a certain number of miles, or a certain amount of heat, or a certain amount of work), and a pound doesn't.
Because that would be the system in The Republic, and that is what would be decreed.
Their superior knowledge and ability would have been recognised from birth, with them being given 'Gold' status, along with education and training over the years, to enhance their skills so that they may take their place with the 'philosopher kings'. They would be revered and kept comfortable by the 'Silver' and 'Bronze' levels, but it would be the workers, in the 'Bronze' strata of society who would labour hard, but be able to accumulate unlimited wealth, that no others would be able to do.
This system would recognise the God given qualities of the members within this society, and educate accordingly, and allow the workers fair reward for their labours. This is the system that should have been commenced with in ancient times, but the ruling classes took over and for centuries we have been travelling to where we are now.
It will take a revolution of dramatic proportions, and totally unlike the French version of 1789!! However, I cannot see this happening any time soon! ::) ::) :'( :'(
-
personally, i'm not that fussed about who is, or wants to be, prime minister.
I'd rather have the money.
-
another question -
lots of adverts offering to buy gold.
companies don't buy if they can't sell at a profit.
who's buying the gold?
clue:
Rules od monopoly:
"The 'bank' never goes broke. If 'The Bank' ever runs out of money, it can make as much more as needed by merely writing on any ordinary piece of paper"
I think, ultimately, that the "ruling capitalists" are buying the gold, because most, if not all, the world's currencies are going to become worthless, and the only "real" wealth will be in gold.
And surely the answer to that is for us all to empty our piggybanks and go and buy some gold. We are then participants rather than poor under priviliged peasants, or bitter, jealous people wishing we had a slice of the pie.
Be aware however if you do thaat and dont have the nouse to sell your gold at the right time, you could end up poorer and more downtrodden than you were to start with. ;)
That is an easy one. If prudent Gordon is selling then BUY. If he is buying then SELL ;D ;D
-
'dangle berries' Varche - youve discovered my get rich quick secret. ::) :D ;D ;D
-
so you feel that the answer is to remove the "ruling elite" and give power to "the masses"?
can't see that working, it will just create a new elite.
I'd rather give anyone the chance to JOIN the elite.
classic vicious circle.. the problem with the masses way of thinking.. its been solved more then a hundred years ago, in a commuity with equal chances the classic pyramid shape of classes will change to a balanced and more flat shape with higher percentage of community well educated..
classical boss + slave workers picture will likely change..
"everything changes, except the change "
-
I'm playing a wild card here but, some vote some don't & non votes are wasted or go to someone else? i dunno but what would happen at the next general election if no one voted? If the whole country caught a dose of the apathy i happily live with, what would happen? I can picture them all in anticipation then NOTHING!!!
Would the police or military take over for a while? Would there be an EU input? Just wondered!!!! Guy. :D
good question, sadly all that would happen is the incumbent government would be asked by the Queen (or whoever the head of state is at the time) to remain in power until another election can be called and so on and so on until at least one person voted somewhere for someone :y
-
anyway this is about banks holding the real power, at least politicians are elected ::)
-
personally, i'm not that fussed about who is, or wants to be, prime minister.
I'd rather have the money.
;D ;D :y
-
I'm playing a wild card here but, some vote some don't & non votes are wasted or go to someone else? i dunno but what would happen at the next general election if no one voted? If the whole country caught a dose of the apathy i happily live with, what would happen? I can picture them all in anticipation then NOTHING!!!
Would the police or military take over for a while? Would there be an EU input? Just wondered!!!! Guy. :D
No reponse? Given the politics/current affairs fans some of you are & how strongly you feel i'm surprised.
I must be outside the comfort zone...they don't like that! ::)
-
That is an easy one. If prudent Gordon is selling then BUY. If he is buying then SELL ;D ;D
I think Gordon Brown gets a lot of bad press.
He might have been in charge when the brown stuff hit the fan, but he didn't cause the mess - not in Greece, or Portugal, or the States, or Ireland, or Iceland...
If anybody is to blame for the present mess that the UK is in now, it's Thatcher. Her government destroyed the manufacturing and producing base to our economy, leaving us with only one real industry - finance.
Then when the "world banking crisis" hit, we had no other real sources of income - we couldn't sell more steel or coal to pay our international debts, because we don't produce either any more.
-
anyway this is about banks holding the real power, at least politicians are elected ::)
ok Banjax, let me ask you a question, why an ordinary person cant be a candidate ;)
-
anyway this is about banks holding the real power, at least politicians are elected ::)
ok Banjax, let me ask you a question, why an ordinary people cant be a candidate ;)
yes we can :y
although in some cases, notably america you need so much money you end up compromising on everything to get power :o
in the UK i think there's a feeling among "the elite" that power cant be entrusted to the oiks who didn't go to the right schools (Margaret Thatcher strangely, being a notable exception) :y
-
That is an easy one. If prudent Gordon is selling then BUY. If he is buying then SELL ;D ;D
I think Gordon Brown gets a lot of bad press.
He might have been in charge when the brown stuff hit the fan, but he didn't cause the mess - not in Greece, or Portugal, or the States, or Ireland, or Iceland...
If anybody is to blame for the present mess that the UK is in now, it's Thatcher. Her government destroyed the manufacturing and producing base to our economy, leaving us with only one real industry - finance.
Then when the "world banking crisis" hit, we had no other real sources of income - we couldn't sell more steel or coal to pay our international debts, because we don't produce either any more.
finance is the play arena for ruling elite.. and there are some other reasons why this was done, but these comments must be left to UK citizens imo.. :-X
-
anyway this is about banks holding the real power, at least politicians are elected ::)
ok Banjax, let me ask you a question, why an ordinary people cant be a candidate ;)
yes we can :y
although in some cases, notably america you need so much money you end up compromising on everything to get power :o
in the UK i think there's a feeling among "the elite" that power cant be entrusted to the oiks who didn't go to the right schools (Margaret Thatcher strangely, being a notable exception) :y
I want to see :D ;D :y
-
anyway this is about banks holding the real power, at least politicians are elected ::)
ok Banjax, let me ask you a question, why an ordinary people cant be a candidate ;)
yes we can :y
although in some cases, notably america you need so much money you end up compromising on everything to get power :o
in the UK i think there's a feeling among "the elite" that power cant be entrusted to the oiks who didn't go to the right schools (Margaret Thatcher strangely, being a notable exception) :y
I want to see :D ;D :y
in theory yes.. in application very rare.. you need money, power, strong relations etc etc even to be a candidate.. or else you will be only a candidate for a candidate ;D
-
anyway this is about banks holding the real power, at least politicians are elected ::)
ok Banjax, let me ask you a question, why an ordinary people cant be a candidate ;)
yes we can :y
although in some cases, notably america you need so much money you end up compromising on everything to get power :o
in the UK i think there's a feeling among "the elite" that power cant be entrusted to the oiks who didn't go to the right schools (Margaret Thatcher strangely, being a notable exception) :y
I want to see :D ;D :y
Then come and vote in a local election - there are countless independent candidates from all walks of life in every single one of them.
Some of them even aren't crackpots and actually get voted in, I hear.
-
That is an easy one. If prudent Gordon is selling then BUY. If he is buying then SELL ;D ;D
I think Gordon Brown gets a lot of bad press.
He might have been in charge when the brown stuff hit the fan, but he didn't cause the mess - not in Greece, or Portugal, or the States, or Ireland, or Iceland...
If anybody is to blame for the present mess that the UK is in now, it's Thatcher. Her government destroyed the manufacturing and producing base to our economy, leaving us with only one real industry - finance.
Then when the "world banking crisis" hit, we had no other real sources of income - we couldn't sell more steel or coal to pay our international debts, because we don't produce either any more.
banks are far too powerful, they literally write their own checks, and our reliance on the financial sector left us weak when it was hit hard. Like you, I dont blame Brown, but even I'd find it a stretch to blame Thatcher - she did what some argue was needed to be done - i dont agree with what she did and how she did it - the price in generations of people left on the scrapheap was far too high and she did ride the crest of the "me generation" wave. but as to the Reaganomic and Thatcherite policies of the 80's - it could be argued well that they sowed the seeds by loosening up banking regulations that allowed the housing market bubble that everyone loved - what goes up must come down i guess :-/
-
anyway this is about banks holding the real power, at least politicians are elected ::)
ok Banjax, let me ask you a question, why an ordinary people cant be a candidate ;)
yes we can :y
although in some cases, notably america you need so much money you end up compromising on everything to get power :o
in the UK i think there's a feeling among "the elite" that power cant be entrusted to the oiks who didn't go to the right schools (Margaret Thatcher strangely, being a notable exception) :y
I want to see :D ;D :y
Then come and vote in a local election - there are countless independent candidates from all walks of life in every single one of them.
Some of them even aren't crackpots and actually get voted in, I hear.
how many of them can go in the parliament, percentage ?
-
Anyone can (in theory) be a candidate in UK elections, but as a Labour activist was saying on TV tonight, socialist / labour supporters for many years have had very little chance of doing this because Peter Mandelson has installed cronies from his circle of Notting Hill champagne socilalists in most constitiuencies, and local party workers and supporters have been completely frozen out. Up the workers and power to the people eh ? ::)
Thatcher was indeed an exception to the public school PM rule, as was iirc John Major. Many people who were educated between the end of the war and the mid 60,s were able to have great social mobility, but that mobility has slowed down and now been reversed by succesful socialist governments, due to the fact that their half baked political dogma has wrecked the state education to the point where millions of school leavers simply do not have the articulacy of thought or speech to have any hope of reaching high office, even in todays dumbed down version of British politics. :(
From what I have seen, the brighter ones are doing the spell checking at the Grauniad. :D ;D
-
37% of current MP's went to fee paying school which doesnt sound high until you consider that only 7% of students in the UK attend those schools, so it is skewed in favour, even more so when you consider Labour only has around 15% of its MPs privately-educated.
Tories and Lib Dems the percenatge is much higher :o
-
Anyone can (in theory) be a candidate in UK elections, but as a Labour activist was saying on TV tonight, socialist/ labour supporters for many years have had very little chance of doing this because Peter Mandelson has installed cronies from his circle of Notting Hill chamoagne socilalists in most constitiuencies, and local party workers and supporters have been completely frozen out. Up the workers and power to the people eh ? ::)
Thatcher was indeed an exception to the public school PM rule, as was iirc John Major. Many people who were educated between the end of the war and the mid 60,s were able to have great socoa mobility, but that mobility has slowed down and now been reversed by succesful socialist governments. ;)
as I said, your socialist parties behave in tunes :-/
sorry Albs, cant say more in detail.. :-X
-
I'd be more comfortable with Labour having 7% ex-public school - reflecting society as a whole :(
cem: "public school" in UK means "private/fee-paying"...........never did know why tho :y
-
37% of current MP's went to fee paying school which doesnt sound high until you consider that only 7% of students in the UK attend those schools, so it is skewed in favour, even more so when you consider Labour only has around 15% of its MPs privately-educated.
Tories and Lib Dems the percenatge is much higher :o
Have you a figure for that BJ? (out of genuine interest)
-
37% of current MP's went to fee paying school which doesnt sound high until you consider that only 7% of students in the UK attend those schools, so it is skewed in favour, even more so when you consider Labour only has around 15% of its MPs privately-educated.
Tories and Lib Dems the percenatge is much higher :o
Have you a figure for that BJ? (out of genuine interest)
ashamed to say i delved into the Mail.......shudder :y
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1275951/Election-results-2010-New-boys-fuel-private-school-Parliament.html
-
I'd be more comfortable with Labour having 7% ex-public school - reflecting society as a whole :(
cem: "public school" in UK means "private/fee-paying"...........never did know why tho :y
just the opposite here..
-
37% of current MP's went to fee paying school which doesnt sound high until you consider that only 7% of students in the UK attend those schools, so it is skewed in favour, even more so when you consider Labour only has around 15% of its MPs privately-educated.
Tories and Lib Dems the percenatge is much higher :o
Private education was something to be hidden and ashamed of in politics until very recently. Blair hated it being mentioned, Dave played it down at every opportunity. Many Mp,s from all parties were Grammar educated. Now, the only possible way for most people to get a decent education is to go private, and almost anyone who can afford to do so does. So it stands to reason that there will be more privately educated people appearing once again at the top of any tree you care to look up at.
Im sceptical about the quoted figure of Labour MP,s who went to public school tbh, but maybe there are still enough of the old grammar educated members( as most of them were) still in the house to justify that figure ? I doubt it tbh.
Conversely, if most of the current Labour MP,s went to comprehensive schools it would explain quite a lot about the quality of people on the opposition benches currently. :D
-
I'd be more comfortable with Labour having 7% ex-public school - reflecting society as a whole :(
cem: "public school" in UK means "private/fee-paying"...........never did know why tho :y
just the opposite here..
that seems more sensible, cem :y
-
I'd be more comfortable with Labour having 7% ex-public school - reflecting society as a whole :(
cem: "public school" in UK means "private/fee-paying"...........never did know why tho :y
"The term public school is commonly used in the UK to refer, paradoxically, to a private school. This use of the term derives from its use to refer to some long-established boys' boarding schools, which were founded or endowed for public use and subject to public management or control; schools which were subsequently reformed by the Public Schools Acts. The term is now commonly used to describe private schools in general"
"Some public schools are particularly old, ..... [major edit] ...These were often established for male scholars from poor or disadvantaged backgrounds; however, English law has always regarded education as a charitable end in itself, irrespective of poverty"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_school_%28United_Kingdom%29
:)
-
37% of current MP's went to fee paying school which doesnt sound high until you consider that only 7% of students in the UK attend those schools, so it is skewed in favour, even more so when you consider Labour only has around 15% of its MPs privately-educated.
Tories and Lib Dems the percenatge is much higher :o
Private education was something to be hidden and ashamed of in politics until very recently. Blair hated it being mentioned, Dave played it down at every opportunity. Many Mp,s from all parties were Grammar educated. Now, the only possible way for most people to get a decent education is to go private, and almost anyone who can afford to do so does. So it stands to reason that there will be more privately educated people appearing once again at the top of any tree you care to look up at.
Im sceptical about the quoted figure of Labour MP,s who went to public school tbh, but maybe there are still enough of the old grammar educated members( as most of them were) still in the house to justify that figure ? I doubt it tbh.
Conversely, if most of the current Labour MP,s went to comprehensive schools it would explain quite a lot about the quality of people on the opposition benches currently. :D
altho private education is no guarantee that you're not just rich and thick - hence the term "cream of society" :y
-
I'd be more comfortable with Labour having 7% ex-public school - reflecting society as a whole :(
cem: "public school" in UK means "private/fee-paying"...........never did know why tho :y
"The term public school is commonly used in the UK to refer, paradoxically, to a private school. This use of the term derives from its use to refer to some long-established boys' boarding schools, which were founded or endowed for public use and subject to public management or control; schools which were subsequently reformed by the Public Schools Acts. The term is now commonly used to describe private schools in general"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_school_%28United_Kingdom%29
:)
everydays a school day on OOF! - cheers :y
-
I'd be more comfortable with Labour having 7% ex-public school - reflecting society as a whole :(
cem: "public school" in UK means "private/fee-paying"...........never did know why tho :y
"The term public school is commonly used in the UK to refer, paradoxically, to a private school. This use of the term derives from its use to refer to some long-established boys' boarding schools, which were founded or endowed for public use and subject to[size=12] public management or control[/size]; schools which were subsequently reformed by the Public Schools Acts. The term is now commonly used to describe private schools in general"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_school_%28United_Kingdom%29
:)
Thanks Entwood :y
-
Given some of the comments above ... some food for thought ....
"From 1964 to 1994, all British Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition, whether Labour or Conservative, had been educated at state schools, with the sole exception of Labour Leader Michael Foot.
Labour Party leaders Clement Attlee, Hugh Gaitskell, Michael Foot and Tony Blair were educated at independent schools, but the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and current Labour party leader Ed Miliband, attended a state school.
Whilst the current Conservative leader and Prime Minister, David Cameron was educated at Eton (and the Conservatives Chancellor George Osborne attended St Paul's School), all Conservative leaders from 1965 to 2005 were educated at state schools, including former prime ministers Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, and John Major.
With the exception of Charles Kennedy, all other past leaders of the Liberal Democrat party, including David Steel, Paddy Ashdown, and Menzies Campbell, were educated at fee-paying schools. Without precedent, both main candidates in the 2007 election for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats -- Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne -- were educated at the same independent school, Westminster School."
So the Lib-dems aren't quite as Lib as you might think ... :)
-
Given some of the comments above ... some food for thought ....
"From 1964 to 1994, all British Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition, whether Labour or Conservative, had been educated at state schools, with the sole exception of Labour Leader Michael Foot.
Labour Party leaders Clement Attlee, Hugh Gaitskell, Michael Foot and Tony Blair were educated at independent schools, but the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and current Labour party leader Ed Miliband, attended a state school.
Whilst the current Conservative leader and Prime Minister, David Cameron was educated at Eton (and the Conservatives Chancellor George Osborne attended St Paul's School), all Conservative leaders from 1965 to 2005 were educated at state schools, including former prime ministers Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, and John Major.
With the exception of Charles Kennedy, all other past leaders of the Liberal Democrat party, including David Steel, Paddy Ashdown, and Menzies Campbell, were educated at fee-paying schools. Without precedent, both main candidates in the 2007 election for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats -- Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne -- were educated at the same independent school, Westminster School."
So the Lib-dems aren't quite as Lib as you might think ... :)
good info Entwood.. :y
however although seems unrelated , in every country there is a blackbook that the prime ministers , presidents must read and strictly follow :-/
-
interesting and quite surprising Entwood :o
-
When talking about blame (in relation to the present financial/social state of this country) we do tend to think of politicians and of governments as being justifiable fodder for our ire but what of us - are we without blame in any measure?
Many people in this country have no interest in politics and when a number of individuals do drag their arses into a polling station they toe the partisan/tribal line with monotonous regularity in many cases.
We reap what we sow in terms of the quality of those whom we elect as public representatives. We levy no realistic sanction when they misbehave, we are disinclined to challenge them on points of concern and we walk away when asked to consider what can be done to alleviate any issues of dissatisfaction.
When apportioning blame to Thatcher, Major, Blair or Brown (to name but a few leaders) we should not forget about the legions of those who exploited the system for their own ends, the stone age unions that ripped the heart out of industry, the lazy unproductive workers who preferred to do anything but work, the leaders of industry more concerned with the bottom line than the integrity of their business, those who wanted to make money at any cost - the list can go on and on.
We should also take a long hard look at our own individual behaviour. In terms of the financial situation we now presently face, many of us are as guilty as those in the financial sector by exploiting that cheap credit for our own purposes.
No, in my view this country is in serious difficulty, not only as a result of questionable policy as formulated by successive governments more inclined to party politics than governing the nation, but also from a population more interested in the make believe world of any activity that is removed from the practical reality of everyday life.
-
When talking about blame (in relation to the present financial/social state of this country) we do tend to think of politicians and of governments as being justifiable fodder for our ire but what of us - are we without blame in any measure?
Many people in this country have no interest in politics and when a number of individuals do drag their arses into a polling station they toe the partisan/tribal line with monotonous regularity in many cases.
We reap what we sow in terms of the quality of those whom we elect as public representatives. We levy no realistic sanction when they misbehave, we are disinclined to challenge them on points of concern and we walk away when asked to consider what can be done to alleviate any issues of dissatisfaction.
When apportioning blame to Thatcher, Major, Blair or Brown (to name but a few leaders) we should not forget about the legions of those who exploited the system for their own ends, the stone age unions that ripped the heart out of industry, the lazy unproductive workers who preferred to do anything but work, the leaders of industry more concerned with the bottom line than the integrity of their business, those who wanted to make money at any cost - the list can go on and on.
We should also take a long hard look at our own individual behaviour. In terms of the financial situation we now presently face, many of us are as guilty as those in the financial sector by exploiting that cheap credit for our own purposes.
No, in my view this country is in serious difficulty, not only as a result of questionable policy as formulated by successive governments more inclined to party politics than governing the nation, but also from a population more interested in the make believe world of any activity that is removed from the practical reality of everyday life.
:o :o :o Did you google that? .... :D :D :D
-
When talking about blame (in relation to the present financial/social state of this country) we do tend to think of politicians and of governments as being justifiable fodder for our ire but what of us - are we without blame in any measure?
Many people in this country have no interest in politics and when a number of individuals do drag their arses into a polling station they toe the partisan/tribal line with monotonous regularity in many cases.
We reap what we sow in terms of the quality of those whom we elect as public representatives. We levy no realistic sanction when they misbehave, we are disinclined to challenge them on points of concern and we walk away when asked to consider what can be done to alleviate any issues of dissatisfaction.
When apportioning blame to Thatcher, Major, Blair or Brown (to name but a few leaders) we should not forget about the legions of those who exploited the system for their own ends, the stone age unions that ripped the heart out of industry, the lazy unproductive workers who preferred to do anything but work, the leaders of industry more concerned with the bottom line than the integrity of their business, those who wanted to make money at any cost - the list can go on and on.
We should also take a long hard look at our own individual behaviour. In terms of the financial situation we now presently face, many of us are as guilty as those in the financial sector by exploiting that cheap credit for our own purposes.
No, in my view this country is in serious difficulty, not only as a result of questionable policy as formulated by successive governments more inclined to party politics than governing the nation, but also from a population more interested in the make believe world of any activity that is removed from the practical reality of everyday life.
:y :y :y
-
The posts on this thread have been some of the best I have seen on the OOF, with great analysis of what is, what is now, and how we got there in our society, along with the rest of the financial and political world. :y :y :y
However until we look at working through alternatives and actually do something about it nothing will alter, which perhaps is the problem. With so many of the population uninterested in what happens within politics (as ZL correctly points out in his excellent last post), until it affects them, we have a problem. We need solutions though, and radical action, or we will change nothing and we just carry on as we are!
I find it extremely interesting how my various posts that strongly intimate an alternative system are not raising many comments. Are they purely being ignored because they are too radical, and seem so hard to achieve? Are they being considered as too far fetched, or just plainly stupid? Have they gone beyond what most on here are prepared to / can / understand?
I am interested to know, as it could, and is currently, telling me that as a nation we are prepared to talk about all the ills of the system, but are not prepared to go 'too deep' to finally resolve the issue. Remember everything we have as common citizens in terms of rights and freedom now are due to individuals and groups stepping forward and taking the plunge to fight the contemporary establishment.
Is this what we are lacking now? Have our rights and freedoms met all expectations to the extent that there is no stomach for a good political fight? Are we simply too comfortable with our lot? It is very sad if the Great British public have mostly arrived at this stage! Nothing will radically change if we have no collective will to alter what is.
-
I took the financial collapse 2 years ago as a warning that our safe, comfortable and stable life in the west is built on smoke and mirrors, beneficial only to a relatively small number at the top - essentially we're all part of a giant ponzi scheme - every loan, mortgage, overdraft, credit card we have is digital numbers on a computer screen - theres nothing tangible behind it - lessons arent being learnt and while we're far from social collapse here other countries with seemingly stable regimes are now crumbling Greece, Tunisia now Egypt - people are happy if they have jobs to put a roof over their head and can feed their families - take that away through no fault of the populace and the house of cards collapses in unrest. Bankers are getting away scot-free and the targets seem to be politicians and governments, truth is, no matter how odious or corrupt a regime - everyone, including who we think of as our rulers pay banks enormous interest payments for, essentially nothing. The sooner we wake up to this con the better - but if we get rid of a few corrupt leaders at the same time then good :y
-
The posts on this thread have been some of the best I have seen on the OOF, with great analysis of what is, what is now, and how we got there in our society, along with the rest of the financial and political world. :y :y :y
However until we look at working through alternatives and actually do something about it nothing will alter, which perhaps is the problem. With so many of the population uninterested in what happens within politics (as ZL correctly points out in his excellent last post), until it affects them, we have a problem. We need solutions though, and radical action, or we will change nothing and we just carry on as we are!
I find it extremely interesting how my various posts that strongly intimate an alternative system are not raising many comments. Are they purely being ignored because they are too radical, and seem so hard to achieve? Are they being considered as too far fetched, or just plainly stupid? Have they gone beyond what most on here are prepared to / can / understand?
I am interested to know, as it could, and is currently, telling me that as a nation we are prepared to talk about all the ills of the system, but are not prepared to go 'too deep' to finally resolve the issue. Remember everything we have as common citizens in terms of rights and freedom now are due to individuals and groups stepping forward and taking the plunge to fight the contemporary establishment.
Is this what we are lacking now? Have our rights and freedoms met all expectations to the extent that there is no stomach for a good political fight? Are we simply too comfortable with our lot? It is very sad if the Great British public have mostly arrived at this stage! Nothing will radically change if we have no collective will to alter what is.
Wise words Lizzie :y :y
-
I took the financial collapse 2 years ago as a warning that our safe, comfortable and stable life in the west is built on smoke and mirrors, beneficial only to a relatively small number at the top
smoke and mirrors.. if we think in a short term , no.. but on the long term yes.. world production is shifting to east where labour is unbelievably cheap..
and this production slowly start to show its effects..
- essentially we're all part of a giant ponzi scheme - every loan, mortgage, overdraft, credit card we have is digital numbers on a computer screen - theres nothing tangible behind it - lessons arent being learnt and while we're far from social collapse here other countries with seemingly stable regimes are now crumbling Greece, Tunisia now Egypt - people are happy if they have jobs to put a roof over their head and can feed their families - take that away through no fault of the populace and the house of cards collapses in unrest. Bankers are getting away scot-free and the targets seem to be politicians and governments, truth is, no matter how odious or corrupt a regime - everyone, including who we think of as our rulers pay banks enormous interest payments for, essentially nothing. The sooner we wake up to this con the better - but if we get rid of a few corrupt leaders at the same time then good :y
Banjax, as you know problem is inside the system ..
I'm afraid getting rid of those corrupt leaders will only delay the inevitable.. West for long time is spending its historical treasure.. And despite all power shows and controlling efforts, overall world resources and production cant continoue to feed the west at the same level and one final note I dont think east also have intention to do that..